The Liability of Employers for Psychiatric Illnesses Suffered by Employees - Coursework Example

The liability of employers for psychiatric illnesses suffered by employees and arising as the result of employees being made to work under stressful conditions The common law of duty of care stipulates that employers need to ensure that the environment in which their employees work is conducive and that the employees are provided with adequate training and feedback on performance, have areas of relaxation and rest at the work place, are protected from discriminations and that employees work in a stress free environment. Under the common law duty of care, employees are also supposed to work in a safe Stress at the workplace has particularly been an issue of concern with studies indicating that work related stress increases the risk of heart attack by 23 percent (The guardian, 14 September 2012). This essay looks at the responsibility of employers of psychiatric illnesses suffered by employees as a result of working under stressful conditions. Work related stress has been on the rise especially in the 21st century where more is expected from the employee. Employers have a duty to protect their employees from stress related illnesses and are often encouraged to adhere to their duty of care towards their employees. In the UK, statistics on work related stress is majorly obtained from Self-Reported Work-Related Illness (SWI) Surveys (Jones, Huxtable, Hodgson and Pryce; 230). There have been cases of employees suffering mentally as a result of working under stressful conditions in the UK. These cases have led to court cases where employers have been found liable and have had to compensate their former employees. In a case (Hatton v. Sutherland (2002)EWCA Civ 76) where employees took their employers to court, a judge who presided over the cases came up with 16 prepositions that can be used in establishing the ambit of the duty of care of employers (Jamdar and Byford, 123). These prepositions were later adopted by the House of Lords and have been used as guidance in such instances in the UK. However there have been cases where these guidelines have been challenged giving an indication that the propositions have not been fully adopted in the UK. One such instance was seen in the case between Intel Corporation (UK)Ltd v Daw (2007) IRLR 355 which brought about a development to paragraph 11 of Lady justice Hales proposition. According to paragraph 11, ‘an employer who offers a confidential advice service with referral to appropriate counseling or treatment services, is unlikely to be found in breach of duty’. The employee Mrs. Daw who had been employed by Intel Corporation since 1998 got a promotion after working for the company for 2 years in 2000. Four months into her new position she told her boss about her workload that was stressing her. She was told to file her complaint in writing which she did. The company promised to give her an additional employ to ease her work load. Sadly, this did not happen as she broke down three months later and was depressed for a long time. To their defence, the company tried to absolve itself from blame by stating that they followed paragraph 11 and were therefore not liable to what happened to Mrs. Daw. The court of appeal rejected their argument by stating that they should have taken action to ease the workload and stress of the employee; Mrs. Daw. The court stated that once the employee had reported that she her workload was a source of stress that was an indication enough for a risk of harm. The company should have acted immediately to ease her work load. The court further indicated that counseling was not enough if her workload was not reduced. This is a development to paragraph 11 of Lady Justice Hale’s propositions where employers are left off the hook with the claim that they provided counseling services. This case shows that the provision of counseling services is not adequate if the root cause of the stress is not taken care of. Another blow to paragraph 11 was witnessed in the case of Dickins v O2 (2008) EWCA Civ 1144. In this case, the employee felt stressed because of work and asked for a sabbatical leave that was supposed to last six months. The employer refused to grant the leave and instead told the employee to make use of the company’s counseling services (Smith and Baker, 433). A month later, the employee raised the same concerns during an appraisal and was referred t the occupational health department. One day the employee suffered a breakdown and failed to report to work. The company could not defend itself by paragraph 11 since the court stated that the employee had foreseen a stressful situation and brought to the attention of the company making the psychiatric injury foreseeable. The employer was found to be in breach of the duty to care to Ms. Dickins. The company was found at fault because it refused to send the employee even after the employee asked for a six month sabbatical leave. It also failed to give the employee priority in referring her to its occupational health facility (Platt, 30 October 2009). Had they prioritized Ms. Dickins’ referral to the occupational health facility, she would have been attended to earlier and would not have suffered a breakdown. In the case of Barber v Somerset County Council, Lord Walker did not approve the Hatton stating that paragraph 6 and 7 favored the employer since they did not have to make further inquiries on the mental health of their employees. Though the prepositions have been used as guidelines, in some instances the guidelines have been challenged or even failed to be adopted. There have been cases that have challenged Hatton successfully and unsuccessfully. The courts have argued that in some instances the prepositions have made it easy for employers to be negligent or not take work related stress seriously. Such improvements go a long way in telling employers that each work related stress should be treated differently and with the utmost agency that it requires. It is not enough to offer counseling services if the workload which is the root cause of the stress is not dealt with. Employers still have a duty to care towards their employees and the Hatton should just act as a guideline in cases of work related stress. Works cited Jamdar, S. and Byford, J. Workplace Stress: Law and Practice, London: The Law Society, 2004. Print. Jones, J.R., Huxtable, C.S., Hodgson, J.T. and Pryce, M.J. Self-reported Work-Related Illness in 2001/2: Results from a Household Survey, Sudbury: HSE Books, 2004, Print. Platt, Heather. Stress alert. 30 October 2009. Web. 14 December 2014. The Guardian. Work stress can raise risk of heart attack by 23%, study finds. 14 September 2012. Web. 14 December 2014. Smith, Ian and Baker, Aaron. Smith and Wood’s Employment Law. Oxford University Press. 2010. Print. Read More